♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Welcome everyone to the Urban County Planning Commission Subdivision Items Meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is now 1.34. We're going to move through the agenda hopefully pretty swiftly here, but before that we have two individuals I would like to mention. We have Jeremy Young as the new planning member, excuse me, employee and he's coming from Jessamine County is that correct Ms. Wade? Jeremy, good to have you. He's backing me back. Thank you. And we also have a new planning member Molly Davis. Molly, you are one arm here and one arm back. But good conversations with you on the phone I'm very happy that you were able to make it. You're still not driving yet, right? I'm a hitchhiker, Uber So it's on the record that you're not driving so we're good to have you and glad to have you aboard. First on the agenda, I would like to take the performance bonds and letters of credit I'd like to get a motion for the approval of performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the performance bonds and letter of credit as documented in the memo from Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I've got Brandon Gross here and I have several postponements. I will take these in order. The first one, I'll bring your attention to page 2 item 2A and that is 3840 Fountain Blue Lane. I am working with staff on this plan we've continued this at the subdivision subcommittee and we believe that we will be on their cycle next month with the plan for the planning commission to look at. This item has a sister case on page 4 item C and that one will one of these two will be withdrawn and consolidated with the other one but those two items will not be hopefully heard today and I would request a postponement to next month which I think is April 10th? Yes. Hearing on both those cases. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gross. The floor is open. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLN-MJSUB 24-11 Hoover and Ford Field Party Evangelistic Associations until April 10th. Okay. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Then I'm going to direct your attention to page 8 and I don't think anyone is here from Wendy's. Oh, sorry. You just did one. Oh, I'm jumping the gun. Thank you, Ms. Wirth. Yeah, yeah. Let me ask for clarification. Is that going to be an indefinite postponement for this one? Is that what you're asking for? No. Postpone this one until next month too. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLN-MJDP 24-74 Hoover and Ford Field Party Evangelistic Association Properties, Lot 4, the Fountains of Palomar until April 10th. Okay. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. All right. That motion passes. Thank you. And Mr. Wilson, I didn't mean to confuse in my discussions with Ms. Wade, we discussed we may consolidate those into one filing which would make the second one withdrawn. But until then, postpone them both. So I appreciate that. Good enough. Thank you. Okay. Now I've got another postponement and this is for the Wendy's project. I'm sorry. On page 8. Number I. And I don't think anyone is here from Wendy's. I represent the property owner and we are working with staff on the lot coverage issue. We think we'll have that resolved and bring this back to you next month on April 10th. So if I could have a one month postponement. Okay. Thank you. Also planning members, please use your microphone. Mr. Wilson, yours wasn't on last time. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 25-2 Givens property to our April 10th meeting at the request of the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, sir. Mr. Owens, please vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. That's all my postponements today. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Planning Commission. My name is Matt Carter. Vision Engineering. I have two postponements. On page 5. Item F. PLN MJDP 24-99 Givens property out lot 7. Similar to the Wendy's you just postponed, I'm asking for an indefinite postponement on this one until we can get the lot coverage worked out. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, on the applicant's request, I move for an indefinite postponement of PLN MJDP 24-99. Okay. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. On the page 2 in your agenda, item 3A. PLN MJDP 24-10 Distillery District West Unit 1. I'm going to have to ask for one month on this one. The owner he had something come up and can't attend today and he wants to be here for that hearing. I'm asking for one month to your April 10 Planning Commission meeting. The floor is open. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 24-10 Distillery District until April 10, 2025. Alright. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. Alright. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you. I actually forgot about this one. I don't know why because it's the biggie. On page 3 item B. PLN MJDP 24-56 Red Mile Mixed Use Development. I'm asking for two weeks on this. March 27th. March 27th. I feel like I'm ready to go forward with this one but I just want to get the staff comfortable with our statistics and once I get them comfortable with it, I can move forward. Two weeks, please. So we're looking at the two weeks postponement to the 27th of March for this application. Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. Good luck on that, Matt. PLN MJDP 24-56 Red Mile Mixed Use Development. I'll move for a postponement until March 27, 2025. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Wade, do you have an agenda? We do have one more postponement for the commission to consider and that's on page 5 item E. PLN MJDP 24-97 for the Park Hill Shopping Center, lot 4. The applicant requested a one month postponement of that item as well. Ms. Wade, I'm sorry, was that page 5 item E as in elephant? Was that item E? E. Alrighty, and they requested one month? One month postponement. And is that the 10th, April 10th? April 10th. Okay. Ms. Chairman, at the request of the applicant, I move to postpone PLN MJDP 24-97 to our April 10th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Ms. Galt just reminded me we also had a request for an item on page 7. Item H. PLN MJDP 25-1 for GDK Farm LLC also known as the Turner property and they also requested a one month postponement. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Lickler. Chair, I move that PLN MJDP 25-1 get postponed to the April 10th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion Mr. Nickel passes unanimously. For the commission members, who's going to be here on the 10th of April? Because y'all know that's Keeneland. I know some folks may not. We got a lot piling up on the 10th. Just checking. I just want to make sure there's a lot of things piling up on the 10th. I want to get ahead of it before we get there. Because if not, we can all meet at Keeneland. Okay, Mr. Duncan. The government's on break that week and school's on break that week so we'll be completely unencumbered. We can stay here as long as we need to that night. Okay, Ms. Wade. Yes, thank you. We do have three items that appear on the consent agenda today and I will read those and see if there's anyone in attendance in the audience that wishes to have any of those heard or if the planning commission wishes to pull any of those for further discussion and then if none of that occurs, the commission can take action on all three of those at the same time. The first item is on page four, item D of your regular agenda PLN MJDP 24-95 for Newtown Springs Lot 4. This is an amended development plan for property located at 1425 Newtown Center Way. Is there anyone present who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. The next item is on page 10, item L PLN MJDP 25-9 South Lexington Development Company Incorporated, also known as Windale Development LLC Higbee Creek, Lot 5 and that is a development plan that encompasses two lots 1850 and 1870 Old Higbee Mill Road. So anyone present who wishes to have this item heard? The next item is on page 11, item M. PLN MJDP 25-10 High Lawn Subdivision, Block A and that's for property located at 1400 North Limestone. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. I don't see anyone from the audience Chair Forrester, so if you have anyone in the Planning Commission or we can take action. Okay. Ms. Wirth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the three items on the consent agenda as presented by Ms. Wade. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That should put us on page 6 of the agenda PLN MJDP 24-101 We have a waiver with that as well. Thank you. Staff? Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Chris Chaney, Planning Staff. I'm going to present PLN MJDP 24-101 The current addition property lots 31 and 38-40 Oldham and Columbia townhomes located at 550, 556, 560 and 568 Columbia Avenue Let me get to the correct plan The purpose of this plan is to develop 13 townhomes, reconfigure 3 lots and depict shared parking This property is located just to the east of UK campus and west of the Chevy Chase neighborhood southwest of Euclid Avenue I believe There's Unit 1 on a lot on the northwest side of Oldham Court Columbia Avenue goes across the top of the plan Park Avenue borders the subject property on the southeast The Unit 2 building with 4 townhomes is on a proposed lot The line is a little bit hard to see but they're proposing a lot line reconfiguration The unit is 5 units that faces Park Avenue There is a waiver request with this proposal The applicant did submit revised plans but not before the deadline Some of the cleanup items have been addressed but we just didn't have enough time to get everything before the meeting There will be some changes There are 12 standard sign-offs and then to denote all buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls and retaining walls that are depicted described or required on this development plan shall require a separate review and building permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction to denote the purpose of plan, which I believe both of those have been corrected Number 15, correct plan title to match staff report I believe that has been completed as well Denote final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan in the title block I also believe that's been done Depict the lotting scheme for adjacent and subject properties for Article 5-2D of the land subdivision regulations Depict the property location on the vicinity map Denote driveway widths in cross section and discuss possible waiver Consolidate all general notes in one group and number accordingly Denote a consolidation plan will be required prior to the issuance of building permits Use the standard site statistics table Provide a lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance and resolve purpose of vehicle use area on the south end of Unit 1 And that's all I have for the plan itself Ms. Wirth Would you recap which conditions are still left? We do want to keep them all on there so that when we do the final review of the revisions that have been submitted, we can Most of the cleanup items have been taken care of. The applicant has been working on that Okay Any more questions from staff? I have a question regarding the orientation on a couple of the buildings here Park Avenue and Oldham Court are both dead ends here and the primary street from a public standpoint or from transportation is Columbia but it looks like two of the corner units face the sort of dead end instead of the primary street Was there discussion on this? I don't remember that we had a discussion about that, no Are there any sort of design guidelines when you have sort of these secondary access dead ends and then a primary street as to the orientation? The front door has to front a public right of way but they can choose which public right of way. They are all public Okay, thank you for the clarification Thank you Are there any more questions? I don't have anything Oh, I'm sorry No worries Sorry about that and thank you for entertaining a question from someone who is entirely new to the Planning Commission but not to Lexington and the controversy that this project seems to have aroused amongst those who live in that neighborhood Do you have any plan that indicates which trees were protected or will be protected while this is developed versus new trees? There are notes on the plan for the tree protection I don't remember the details off the top of my head Any trees that were there on that site? Yeah, we can let the applicant speak to that might be better Good afternoon everybody, my name is Ramona Frye with Element Design Regarding the trees the interior trees were removed and there was a street tree on Columbia that was removed It had a hollow trunk and some issues with limbs and so there was concern that it was a hazard due to the existing condition of it I'll stay here if there's any other questions Do we have any questions for the applicant? I'm just going to pose the same question I sort of had if there was discussion a neighborhood or a city perspective I live around the corner from this Columbia is really the street that most people traverse the orientation on those two on Oldham Court and Park Avenue sort of put their sides to the sort of main street I would maybe like for you to speak to that Sure, we did with the architect look at multiple ways of facing the townhomes out and felt that it was best architecturally to have each building face out towards the street that it was addressing and so that's where we have come up with the configuration facing Oldham, facing Columbia and facing Park so it definitely was discussed and we want to be sensitive to that in those discussions we felt that it was best to orient with the long faces of the building to face each street We've had some other redevelopments in this neighborhood and the houses that were on the corner that are historic in the neighborhood do really interesting architectural ways of addressing both streets the redevelopments, one of the weak points is they tend to have a side that looks like it should not be facing a street it should be facing another house and so my concern is that we're adding two more of those with these Understood, and I believe we can discuss with the architect ways of making those sides that face Columbia more sensitive, a little bit more interesting obviously they have worked with the facades and done insets as they're required to do but I can definitely bring that concern to the architect and to the developer that we want to be sensitive to that Columbia side as well and pay special attention to that Thank you Mr. Michler, can I just clarify there's not a requirement even in our infill area that you have both sides have an entrance but on a side street side yard they do have to have 10% openings that's obviously pretty minimal but it is one of the standards for the infill redevelopment area that there at least be those just 10% of primary and side wall planes facing a public street have transparent glass, windows or person door openings That probably doesn't help much They have to hit a nice low bar there Thank you, further clarification Yes, Mr. Butler Alright, any further questions? Thank you I'll do the waiver Okay, the waiver report on this, as you know the subdivision regulations allow the planning commission to consider waivers when the regulations can't be met The reasons given are exceptional hardship or design innovation and large scale development or infill and redevelopment facilitation or alternate designs for environmental water quality considerations On this proposal, the applicant requests a waiver to article 6-8A exhibit 6-3 and article 6-10B2 of the land subdivision regulations for an alternate to the typical street cross section to serve the proposed townhomes of this proposal The applicant is requesting the waiver under article 1-5A exceptional hardship and 1-5C infill and redevelopment facilitation The existing cross sections do not meet the current standard per the land subdivision regulations and the applicant is proposing to reduce the width of the utility strips requiring a waiver of article 6-8A of the land subdivision regulations to increase the width of the existing sidewalks and locate the required street trees within a 5 foot planting easement located immediately adjacent to the right of way requiring a waiver of article 6-10B2 of the land subdivision regulations In particular along Park Avenue in this area there is a constraint with an existing stone and masonry wall that constrains what can go there without removing the wall The current cross sections which may be a little too small to see on this The existing cross sections have narrower sidewalks so the applicant is proposing to widen the sidewalks as well to meet the standard and so staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of article 6-8A exhibit 6-3 and 6-10B2 for the following reasons that granting the requested waiver will not adversely affect public health safety will affect public health welfare and safety as the sidewalks will meet current standards and there are accommodations for street trees additional utilities are in place and the reduced utility strip will not impact the development adjoining lots or utility providers and granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship due to the conditions on site which include a non-typical existing cross section and an existing stone and masonry retaining wall The findings for the appropriateness for an alternate cross section is allowing a narrower utility strip to accommodate wider sidewalks while providing a planting easement for street trees is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the land subdivision regulations and will not negatively impact public health and safety and the recommendation is made to the following additional condition to denote and depict the proposed 5 foot planting easement on the final development plan Alright, any questions for staff? Ms. Davis Is that working? Thank you Could you indicate using the plan which trees this would the waivers being requested to accommodate or where exactly could you just use your arrow to show me where you're talking about? Yeah, particularly on Park Avenue is where the sidewalk the utility strip between the sidewalk and the curb would be narrowed so the sidewalk can be widened and then the planting strip would be between the the planting easement would be to the left of the sidewalk, so in front of the structure the applicant may be able to give you a little more detail on that as well. There are no trees shown in there. Is there a plan to have more trees? It looks incredibly developed and undergreen in my opinion There is a requirement for street trees and those would go in that planting easement The plan revisions do show street trees in that proposed planting 5 foot planting easement in front of each of the units obviously because of the narrow cross sections there won't be giant shade trees in that case, we'll work with the urban forester to select an appropriate tree but there are additional trees shown on the updated plan as well as those street trees in that proposed easement Do we have an opportunity to see that corrected plan? The corrected plan was submitted after our deadline which is 48 hours ahead of the meeting so the staff has reviewed that plan but we did not include it within the PowerPoint because it was late. Okay, thank you Tracy, thank you Ramona Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you Ms. Frye Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Mr. Baker I'll be short, I live on Park Avenue about 15 houses down from this development, I've lived there about 30 years Do you guys state your name? Mark Barker I live at 439 Park Avenue I had a couple of pictures of the trees that were removed on park and I have an old printer so they're not particularly good There's one and like I said my printer is not particularly good but it's sizable and then on Park Avenue there were several trees as well So there's a lot of trees that also were on Columbia as well that were removed and I do think it's important to the neighborhood to get those trees back and the development plan I saw didn't have them so I still haven't seen a development plan with the trees back so I'm asking to make sure there's a provision to require that on the final development plan My other concern is it seems like there's going to be 2 or 3 or 4 bedrooms per townhome there's only like 13 parking spaces I believe so near UK there's going to be a lot of students, they all have cars where are they going to park? So that would be my other concern as well. Thank you Thank you. Is there anyone else? Alright, we'll bring it back to the commission Any further discussion? If not, the floor is open Let me ask the staff one thing We're back on trees it seems like hearing that there was a revision but you got it late, how comfortable are you that the trees that's been presented on that late plan are satisfactory? Well I will say a lot of times we don't see the trees indicated that are street trees in terms of a graphic like this but the street trees are required to be spaced at least I think it's 30 feet apart so there may not be one tree per unit but they would be planted in the front yard instead of the utility strip That may not be the best health for the tree I'm not sure the utility strip offers much better situation in this case because of the very narrow width of those utility strips at least in the front yard they would be generally maintained by the owners there or the common ownership of the all of the units but we do think that they can there is 5 feet to plant a tree Thank you I missed a little bit of that, we've got a sign in problem over here For the gentleman, I may be restating something you said Ms. Wade but our ordinances now require that all of these kind of developments have a certain percentage of tree canopy coverage and the urban forester has to sign off on the plans Ms. Davis Are you saying that there's going to be a requirement that trees are planted in the front yard in grass rather than in the right of way or utility easement? Yes And the urban forester similar to what Ms. Worth said does go out and check that those trees are planted So that's Park Avenue, how about Columbia and Oldham Court Where ever they have frontage on a public street, they require those street trees And to Mr. Barker's question, are these two bedroom units, three bedroom units? What's going to be the ultimate density in this area? Chris, can you answer that? With your microphone There we go Ok Sorry If I can answer that Twelve of the units are two bedroom, there is one unit that faces park that is three bedroom and that is because it has an ADA bedroom on the ground floor but the rest of them are two bedrooms So we have 27 new cars potentially in this place Is this, in terms of I guess built area versus open space Is this sort of like the max you can build and the very minimum of green space or how do the two balance out? No, there is more open space or green space than the minimum requirement on the plan So it's not ultimately maxed out Where else could you build? No, we wouldn't build anywhere else I meant that it does exceed the requirement for open space And rather than having to have a waiver was it considered to reduce the footprint of some of the units where you have to ask for a waiver? Well, let's clarify Open space, we talked about this at subdivision committee because Ms. Clark attended The R2 zone where you're doing multi-family has no requirement for open space So they do exceed open space because if it's zero, anything would be greater than that The other thing is they are required landscaping between differing dwelling unit types So where this is considered multi-family, four units or five units attached and they're next to a single family or a duplex home they are required that extra landscaping but that doesn't count towards open space It's a required landscape buffer So they are providing that width and then depicting the plantings that are required within that I'm still a little confused but thank you for that explanation Thank you Thank you Ms. Frye Just for the sake of everybody here Ms. Wade, could you remind us about our parking minimums and the decisions we've made about that Yes, so probably about two years ago Lexington removed all of the parking minimums so that there are no particular standards for parking requirements for any of our zones which means that the applicant provides what they believe is necessary for their development I will note that I believe there might be a few extra parking spaces coming Obviously that doesn't cover the total number of bedrooms but our regulations have never been a one-to-one on bedrooms Often times they were one per dwelling unit and then less than one per bedroom so this wouldn't meet that standard but again our standards were updated about two years ago so there's no minimum parking standards I believe there is on-street parking at least for some of this area Thank you Ms. Wade The floor is open for a motion We've got two items here Mr. Nickel Yes After hearing the presentation and seeing the results of an infill redevelopment project that adds 13 dwelling units on underutilized property I'd like to vote for a motion to approve PLN MJDP 24-101 Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Wilson Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus Okay that motion passes We have the waiver Mr. Nickel I'd like to make a motion to approve the waiver with the findings that were delivered in our packet on PLN MJDP 24-101 Okay do we have a second? Second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus That motion passes That motion passes as well Thank you That should put us on page 9 PLN MJDP 25-7 We have revised staff recommendations a waiver and an EAMP compliance report Is that correct? Correct PLN MJDP 25-7 PLN MJDP 25-7 CalGill Partners LP Properties Meadowcrest amended located at 25 50 Winchester Road This is a large development This is I-75 to the left along the top of the plan is Winchester Road This is Polo Club Boulevard On the right side Outside of this plan is the proposed tunnel road to connect to Sir Barton under I-75 The Baptist Health development is to the south of this plan The purpose of this plan is to revise the layouts on lot 1 and 2 for a planned mixed use office and residential development This is in an ED zone in the expansion area This is lot 1 to the right and lot 2 to the left This is Commerce Avenue which is internal to the development which connects at the north end where Hume Road is This is being realigned at Winchester Road Commerce Drive is proposed to come down through and connect into the Baptist Health property This development is accessed directly off Commerce and then Paramount Drive connects parallel to Commerce At this time, they're not proposing to build all of Paramount This is an extension from Hamburg Park Lane which was formerly on the previous plan an unnamed street that connects to Polo Club Boulevard Paramount is proposed to connect here through this proposal to the southern property boundary where eventually it will connect to the tunnel road There are 274 proposed residential units on lot 1. There is a proposed mixed use office and residential with 88 residential units and associated parking On lot 2, there are two residential structures on the northern portion of the property 53 units each. They're proposed at and then there is another mixed use office and residential with 80 residential units proposed in the southwest corner There's also proposed a clubhouse and pool area and then associated parking shared parking between the structures We did have a meeting with the development team last Friday and they submitted a revised plan which is reflected here and you do have revised comments in your packet There were some discussions about the road connections We do have 12 standard sign-offs and then to provide a lighting plan per article 30 which the applicant has provided a lighting plan but it doesn't show the entire property so we're waiting on an updated lighting plan 14 is to remove what appears to be spot elevation tick marks on the plan face on the revised plan There were some errant marks that show up I don't think you can see them on here It's just a clean up item 15 is provided the planning commission finds that the development complies with the expansion area master plan 16 is provided the planning commission grants a waiver 17 is to denote exactions to the approval of the division of planning 18 is after the meeting with the development team they added a note, number 34 on the plan regarding light trespass on the lots 3 and 4 The applicant The applicants own all four lots and there is a provision for an agreement between landowners to allow for light trespass We'll get the lighting plan and look at that and see how much light trespass there is but then also they will have a written agreement stating that they're okay with that The last condition is to discuss open space agreement with the University of Kentucky for lot 17 There was a question in our meeting about lot 17 is the large lot here which will be developed by UK and the discussion was about being able to count 25% of that for open space and I believe the applicant has stated that they'll be able to meet their 25% open space without counting that without counting lot 17 so we don't need to get into the details of the agreement and I can let the applicant speak to that a little bit more in detail if you'd like to hear that. That's all I have so I'll open it up if you all have questions Mr. Wilson In terms of number 18 and 19 you have discussed but that should be resolved, right? I Right, because these two conditions were new after the subdivision committee meeting we just wanted to discuss that with you all so you were aware of the change But have you resolved the change or are you just going to discuss it? We wanted to make sure you were aware there was a change so we wanted to have Mr. Chaney present that to you and be available to discuss it today so once the discussion happens you acknowledge that either you accept the change or Mr. Gross may have a change he's suggesting and then you can ask us to resolve it. Okay, thank you Alright, we can carry on Alright, on to the waiver The applicant submitted a waiver request the request they're requesting a waiver to article 6-8A of the land subdivision regulations for an alternate to the typical street cross sections to serve the proposed mixed use development The applicant is requesting the waiver under article 1-5A for exceptional hardship and 1-5D for design innovations and large scale development The developer is proposing to narrow the lane width of Paramount Drive where it enters the subject properties from the north from 15 feet required per exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations to 11 feet with on street parallel parking with a limited number of reverse angle spaces near the proposed clubhouse As Paramount Drive enters into the lot 1 and 2 they're proposing to reduce the lane width to 11 feet with parallel parking These design elements are proposed to act as a traffic calming measure on Paramount Drive and will reportedly provide the same level of service at slower speeds as the standard cross section and will align with forthcoming standards in the complete streets manual Granting these waivers should have no adverse impact on public health and safety and is consistent with the land subdivision regulations Staff is recommending approval of the requested waiver of article 6-8A for the following reasons 1. Granting the requested waiver will not adversely affect public health welfare and safety as the reduction of lane width is still sufficient for normal vehicular traffic and will act as a traffic calming feature. 2. Granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of article 1-5B of the land subdivision regulations for design innovations and large scale development due to creating a traffic calming effect on traffic along Paramount Drive. The findings for the appropriateness of an alternate cross section is to allow a reduction in width in the drive lanes from the required 15 feet to 11 feet of the proposed street cross section in order to provide traffic calming is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the land subdivision regulations and will not negatively impact public health and safety Ms. Wirth Mr. Wilson raised the question about number 19 So we have not really discussed what is that, three parking spaces that are angled and back in parking down at the bottom of Paramount Drive They're located right there Could you talk a little bit about that decision I'm not a big fan of back in parking on streets but I'm open to persuasion perhaps We've had some discussion on it and traffic had some concerns and so they have reduced the total number of the back in parking and have moved it further away from the curve and I think I believe that the back in parking is to serve the clubhouse other than that area then there would be on street parking on Paramount between lots 1 and 2 not on the greenway road I believe or the road that goes through the greenway I should say but we had some discussions about there is back in parking shown but they did reduce that Originally when we saw this plan was there more I think from the north end of the clubhouse all the way to the south end David Yeah you were correct they had it through the curve and that was the concern so back in parking is allowed you're not allowed to actually back out into the right of way so pull in is not allowed by our zoning ordinance they could have gone with parallel and in this instance they wanted to do back in parking but we did not like that it was in a curve so that's why they reduced it to basically just those three because that's in a tangent section where it's straight and the sight distance wouldn't be blocked by the car preceding you but overall back in parking is allowed we don't have it in many places but it is allowed and that's all I have on the waiver request and then finally on the the expansion area master plan compliance report the applicant did submit a report and staff staff findings for this it's in expansion area 2A it's in an ED zone economic development this amended final development plan proposes to develop 76.39 acres into 17 lots lot 17 is 41.35 acres and is the proposed site for a new UK medical campus development the remaining net acreage of 35.04 will be developed as both principal ED uses as well as supportive uses the principal uses total 827,154 square feet comprised primarily of a professional office space and accessory parking structures the supportive uses comprise 207,915 square feet and consist of a proposed hotel branch banks, restaurants, residential and mixed use all with associated parking areas and then this plan proposes 133,520 square feet of single use residential on lots 1 and 2 in compliance with article 23A dash 10J and proposes a total of 274 dwelling units the amended final development plan meets the zoning ordinance requirements for land use including the split between principal and supportive uses I talked a little bit before about the connections and the proposed streets and the network streets proposed throughout the development and pedestrian and bicycle connections through the development. And then in the community design element, the EAMP does not recommend any scenic overlays or rural roads in the area governed by this development plan. The EAMP envisioned the greenways as a unifying feature that would connect various land uses in the expansion area and there is a good portion of greenway on this lot 3 and 4 which is just north of the current proposal with associated multi-use paths and sidewalk connections. And then there's proposed connections to the existing roadways to the north, south and east and then eventually in the future to the west on the tunnel road to connect over to Sir Barton. And then the EAMP regulations require 25% of open space for the entire project and the applicants proposing that this development will meet that. There were no significant tree stands identified on the EAMP on the subject property, however the tree inventory map required by Article 26 of the zoning ordinance did identify several large trees primarily in the stormwater management area. And then as far as the infrastructure element, there are no major infrastructure elements located on the property as required by the EAMP with the exception of the two detention areas. One is located at the intersection of Polo Club and Winchester Road and the other near the interstate on lot 17 which I believe is there to the southwest. The conclusions, the staff finds that the amended final development plan for CalGill Partners LP Properties Meadowcrest is in compliance with the future land use and infrastructure elements and substantial compliance with the community design elements of the expansion area master plan for the following reasons. Number one, the use and proposed development meet the definition of the economic development ED land use category of the EAMP that has been planned for this area. Number two, the proposed development does meet the requirements of the economic development zone. And number three, all required sanitary sewer trunk line and collector street infrastructure to serve this development are in place. Any questions for staff? All right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon again. Brandon Gross on behalf of the property owner. We are outside in the expansion area and so as such we have to provide an affidavit that we posted the sign. That's for the staff to fulfill that requirement. Let me look up here. So once again, Chris did a good job of orienting everyone but this is Winchester Road along the north and then right now Hume Road connects here. The property owner is realigning Hume Road. So to go into the site, this is Polo Club Boulevard. The tunnel road is hard to see on this but the proposed tunnel road is going to be along here into the roundabout which will then connect up into this project and then continue on under the interstate to the other side of Hamburg. And currently, essentially everything from this line north is all, all of this is in a final development plan already but we're only modifying the area down in here. And so I'm going to flip to that in a second. But does anyone have any questions on, just in general, before I go to the smaller? All right, seeing none, whoops, wrong way, no, right way, there we go. And then let's go ahead, this, I'm not sure, after I turn 40, every year my eyes get worse and so I have a hard time, someone, Chris, can you go to this side, it's a little bit cleaner, I think, for us to be able to see. Okay, this helps a little bit more with contrast for everybody. So yes, so this is the area in, oh that's right, I can't use this anymore. So this is the area in question, unless, does it have a, a laser? I think it just does the bubble. Do I have to hit it twice? So maybe it's not, yeah. Okay, so this is the area, so what you see to the north of the property, this is the green space, the greenway that was being discussed, Hamburg Park is the unnamed road and we're going to build that to connect, essentially it's going to stub until Tunnel Road is eventually built on the project. Yes, and as to going with Mr. Wilson's questions as to numbers 18 and 19, yeah, we think those could be resolved. I've talked with Ms. Wade before the hearing, those were new notes and we think they could be resolved. The first note on 18, as Mr. Chaney mentioned that you could have an agreement to allow spillage from one lot to a second lot on light spillage and so we do anticipate some light from lots 1 and 2 to spill into the green space because we have those trails right next to it to kind of light up a little bit in that area. We think we'll be able to work through the staff on that and also on to the agreement between the two parties to permit that, so we think that should be a resolve item. The second item on discuss the agreement with the university, for those who don't have the opportunity to be in agreement with staff and property owners, sometimes there's a lot of going back and conversations. In this instance, we will meet the 25% open space and so during the conversation we were talking about lot 17 and it was discussed whether or not we would need any of that lot open space to meet our requirements. We don't believe there is such a need and so we believe that the open space compliance should be a resolve issue that we could take care of during the certification process. And going with, for those who were at the subdivision subcommittee last week, there was some discussion with Mr. Parker and I. We had a great meeting with him on Friday. It appears that I misunderstood what Mr. Parker was talking about and there was a miscommunication on the notes. All of that has been resolved. We had a meeting, I think David can confirm, that we resolved all of those items. And Ms. Wirth, you are correct. We did have more rear parking. My understanding is that the complete streets is not going to require, but is going to recommend more rear parking. We are not allowed to have front parking that reverses into traffic. And so we reduced, I believe we had eight spaces, and we've reduced that down to three. Took it out of the curve and traffic engineering believes that it can function safely. And then the last item I want to mention is the waiver. So what we have to the north is more of the commercial area. And so what we've asked is for the roadway, once you pass the intersection of Hamburg Park and go into the green space area, is to taper the road down a little bit so that the road width, the actual pavement width, is a little bit narrower to reduce traffic. And then we're going to put parallel parking also as another reduction. And so the idea being as you leave the more intensive commercial use and go into the greenway, which with the trails we believe is going to be a nice amenity open space park-like setting and go into the more residential areas, that the traffic will slow down automatically as you move into that area. And so that's the reason we've requested the waiver. It's just to reduce a 12-foot drive lane to an 11-foot, I think that's accurate. Is that accurate? Yes. And so that's why we requested the waiver. And I guess we could probably go back to just the regular. Yes, that's what I thought. And so at this point, do you have any questions for me? Yeah. Thank you. Where precisely is the area where you're requesting the waiver? Okay, yeah. So the area for the waiver will start here, and you can see this is the standard 52-foot cross section. Then when you cross this intersection, it will start, you can see the tapering, and it will taper from 52 feet to 50 feet, and that will remain as you go down to the end of our property line, and then eventually that will bump into Tunnel Road once this road gets built. And the reason for the request for the waiver is to calm traffic, tighten up the road, the road, the typical standard section? Yes, ma'am. And that actually, we believe that the Complete Streets Manual will probably recommend more 11-foot width drive lanes. So we believe we're one step ahead of where we're going to be with the Complete Streets Manual. Okay. Just out of curiosity, in the greenway area, it looks as though you have some trails, lovely, and a stream that's been placed underground to dump into the retention-detention greenway you're calling it. If it's a retention-detention greenway, it doesn't seem like it has the potential to be a huge amenity, because it's going to have water in it. It's going to have to let out water. It's going to have to be pretty open. So I guess, is there also a trail, I guess there is a trail around it. What's the length of the trails on the right-hand side, and is there a circularity to it, or is it coming from somewhere, going to somewhere? What is the kind of rationale for the trails in the proposed greenway area? So the greenway, I guess, can we flip back to the other slide? Yes ma'am, sorry, that slide, my handout. So the blue area, this isn't working. So the blue area is water, and that's going to be water that's held there. It's essentially, this is an old farm pond, and it is being retained as an old farm pond. And so the amenity is going to be, it's a water feature. But is it retention or detention? Because if you're retaining it, it's going to be water. If it's detention, it's eventually going to let out and be kind of a... Well that's my next point, it's both. And so if you look at where the blue ends, and there's a secondary line, that is the detention. So it's been built to permit itself to capture additional stormwater, and then slowly release it onto the other side of Polo Club, which is the other area. And I believe, is that stream, is that exposed, or is that underground? Yeah, it's exposed, so the only part that's underground is the culvert moving from the pond to the stream. And then once again, it hits the culvert, goes underneath Polo Club, and then it goes into the actual floodplain. I think it's going to be unsightly to have an open drainage line without... It looks like it's going to be concrete rubble in there, there's no planting, there's no consideration for the fact of how you help water get from one place to another and don't end up with erosion and other issues. So it's not a ditch, it's a water quality feature. So it'll have creek cobble, it'll have small pools, riffles in it. It's part of the overall stormwater master plan, so we have detention and water quality. It's not going to be a concrete line, and we actually think it's going to be a very attractive feature. It's going to be landscaped, and we're not required to show that at this level, but the final product, we want it to be an amenity, so there's going to be a lot of money invested in making it look nice. Do we get to see what your plans for that are, or do we just take your word for it? Those are handled with our filings with our plans with the city, underneath the water quality manuals and the other engineering manuals. What you have here is not what you're saying, Matt. So I'm interested in seeing at what point do we get to see that, the ripples, the riffles, the pools, the landscaping. That's generally not brought before this body. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. Mickler? When you're bringing that road down to 11 feet, which I'm glad to hear that you probably soon wouldn't have to ask for a waiver for that. While we're doing a waiver, why are you only asking for 11, and why not 10, or? The buyer wants, I believe, a minimum of 22. 20. Minimum of 20. And so we brought it down to 11. Okay. You don't want the waiver for the 10. With the parallel parking, that was a concern that, yeah, they needed a little bit more room. We could have gone 10, you're right, but we went with 11 as a compromise. Okay. It's Matt. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we were talking about that road and parking, Mr. Gross, how close are you with your parking spaces and so forth? Do you need that parallel parking on that street? Okay. So the parallel parking on that street is, we intend, we think that will be parking that area rather than parking in the apartments and the other areas, that there would be some on-street parking to permit people from across town to be able to come, and like I said, we think that, and we hope that people will come and will use this trail system that's being built throughout this entire development. And so that would give an opportunity for people who are not necessarily there for shopping or living to actually come to the site to and have parallel parking. Do you need it? Do you need those spaces? We think we do. Are you saying there's no other parking area for those people coming in from the outside other than on that street? That is correct. Mr. Gross, let me ask you this. I agree with Ms. Worth. I'm, you know, traffic may be okay with it, but I'm not a fan of the back-end parking, angled parking. Any place that I've seen it here in town, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen. With those three spots, do you need those three spots? We think we need those three spots because, once again, people that are coming that aren't necessarily visitors to the apartments, we would like them to have somewhere to park. But, I mean, we've done, we've essentially done an internal, this is Carson Bauchman with the property owner, we've done internal parking and we think we're tightly parked as it is in our development. We're at .93 per unit, 1.4, or .93 per bedroom, 1.4 for each unit. That parking on the street is very intentional because we want to slow people down. We want to have an urban feel in this environment and every spot that we've put on we think we do need. That back-end parking is really geared more towards the future when that tunnel road goes through because as people are able to drive through that way, we think potential residents, people visiting the site, can park there and use that clubhouse. Parallel parking can be challenging, so we thought the back-end parking would be easier for some, so we would like to have that parking. Every place I've seen it, it's either the fact that you've got people simply pulling into it, instead of backing in, they're either pulling into it the wrong way or when you stop to back into it, you're running the risk of getting rear-ended. Like I said, I'm just not a fan of it and I'm just wondering if we can get away with it. Thank you. One other question and I'm going to go back to something Ms. Davis was asking about. As I'm looking at the plan, I'm aging myself here. We're not on this version, but the black and white version, where what looks like peace symbols are, I presume those are tree plantings? Yes. Okay, so in looking at the drainage easement, these days we're planting a lot of trees to control water flow. Is there a reason we're not showing any trees being planted in that drainage easement? Yes, so generally on the development plans, we show interior trees, which are the peace symbols. We will show the other trees plantings when we file for our landscape and we have to have a 30% tree canopy for each of these lots, so there will be a substantial number of trees. Those are not generally shown on the development plan. We plan on this to be a very vegetative, very treed. The idea is we want people to think this is nice, so they come and they live and they play in this area. So that would include those trees. Just something to add, the area where the ditch is, there's going to be some overflow in that area and it's designed into it for water quality. That area is going to be planted pretty heavily with kind of wild plants you see along stream beds. Right, and so there's a riparian zone associated with it. It's got to have plants that can handle getting wet that like that environment, but we typically would not show those at this time, but there is another step to design all that. We're just not there yet. And that's part of the, when we design stormwater, we have a quantity question, which is are you providing enough area to capture the stormwater? And then we have the quality, and that occurs after the development plan where we design that with the engineers for the city to make sure what is being captured is then being cleaned-ish at that stage before it goes into further downstream. Okay. Mr. Mickler. Yeah, just one note, and that's just that I think if we increase the number of back and angled parkings, then the frequency that people will use them correctly will be increased as well. They just are pretty rare here, and so if the manual changes and we see a lot more of that, I think that would solve the use concerns there. Similar to roundabouts when they first came. Yeah, so I think that change will happen naturally. We've got, you're building here that you're sort of modifying this here on building four, and this is sort of a question. With the parking design and regulations, this is I'm sure in compliance, but I just maybe want to like flush out why. You know, we've asked that the parking rows along the public street be limited to sort of one aisle, and this is sort of two aisles along that street, but is that considered the rear, or is that considered the side, and that's why that is able to be two? Is that what I'm seeing here? Yes, and so currently there is no tunnel road, and we are not considering that the front of this site, but we are going to have, those will be garage canopied, so they won't just be parking, and then we have also each, if you look at buildings three and four, we're doing podium parking under the building. So, and then on buildings one and two, we will have some additional internal parking, so we're putting a lot of parking inside the building and or otherwise covering it with those canopies. So we've tried to reduce the amount of surface parking with this project, and we think the podium parking has helped with that a lot. And I guess I'll have a question for staff later, just how you handle, I guess, proposed roads versus actual roads, but thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. Ms. Davis? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you, with your, oh, you can't with your pointer, sorry. So using the plan, where is the front of building four? Is it to the north and to the east, or is it to the south and to, okay, so that is, those are the, wait, what? That's the front? Yeah, that's the front. That's the front. The polo club. Okay. So there's no parking between the building and polo club. Right. And then you used a term I haven't heard before, podium parking? What does that mean? That's where essentially you build the building on stilts, and so the first livable floor is actually the second floor, and the ground is, so the parking's covered. Oh, so you have parking under the, I see. Yes, ma'am. So the parking's underneath the building, yes. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wirth? Okay, this is one more. You said canopies. Are you going to have covered canopies for parking? Yeah, along the proposed tunnel road, yes. Okay. Can I put in a plug for solar panels on those? Yeah, we'll look at them. Yeah. Yeah. Because I have seen those on. I have discussed those with certain clients, and I think we even did a VOA recently to permit those to be built in a parking lot in Lexington. They're doing them in a lot of other cities. We'd love to see them go in here. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Gross? I think you answered a lot of questions. That's okay. I know. Do we have any more? I've got to be worth my pay. I get paid by question. Isn't that right, Carson? But I'll still be here. I know I think Mr. Mickler or someone may have questions for staff, but if you have any more, Carson and I are here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak as a citizen? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. I don't think we have any further questions, but if there are. One technical one. Okay. See, I knew you was going to do it, Robert. One technical one for staff here. With that, Tracy, just one question here. On that proposed road, on Tunnel Road, where you've got next to Building 3, where you've got those garage canopies, if those garage canopies were not there, would that be considered two rows of parking, or would that be considered a side yard and permitted, I guess? It would be in the side yard, I think, because it's set back behind the structure itself or in line with it, so it's not in the front yard. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah. All right. The floor is open. We have three action items on this one. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMD MDP 25-7, Cargill Partners and LP Properties with the 19 conditions provided by staff. Mr. Wilson, could you turn on your microphone? Yeah. It is on. Or get a little closer, maybe? Are we changing 18 from discuss to resolve? Well, I would prefer to do that, but the staff would say, see, for my purposes, discussion does not resolve. It always leads to resolution. So I would say put 18 and 19 to resolve those issues. Is that okay? Yes. Oh, okay. All right. Now, I will go back then, since you all can now hear me, and say that I propose approval of PLNMJDP 25-7, Cargill Partners and LP Properties, with the 19 conditions provided by staff, changing discuss to resolve on 18 and 19. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Nickel. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I also move for the waiver, with the recommend approval of the waiver requested in Article 6-8, in parenthesis A, with the two conditions provided by staff, along with that, the findings of the one finding that the staff has also provided. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Nickel. Please vote via Granicus. That motion passes unanimously. And finally, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the, that we find this project is in compliance with the future land use and infrastructure elements, with the three conditions provided, or the three reasons provided by staff. Okay. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Nickel. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you, applicant. Put us on page 9 still, PLN MJDP 25-8, and we have revised staff recommendations for this application as well. Good afternoon. We are going to work on review plan MJDP 25-8. This is Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple. This property is located out off of Harrodsburg Road, and this is Fountain Blue, which kind of wraps around and goes over here to our new Publix at the corner of Man O' War and Harrodsburg Road. We're coming back in with another lighting layout of buildings on this property. They're proposing a convenience store with the gas pumps and canopy here, and then a car wash, and with the car wash with canopy for the parking. This property is on B3, which is the corridor business, which has a 30% lot coverage. So with this plan, they revised it, and they came back, and they're adding the canopies, which can be used as lot coverage so that they can meet the 30% coverage. They have a revised plan. The first 12 conditions are our typical sign-offs per our lighting plan, per Article 30 for the zoning ordinance. We had two discussion questions. Discuss driveway access points no longer lining up on Fountain Blue. They originally had this driveway access point coming through here, and now they've moved it. And then discuss drive-through between building and canopy, which they have a – here's your entrance point, and then you have a drive-through canopy to go – or drive-through between the building and the canopy for the C store. I left those as discussion because we met with the applicant the other day in Division of Traffic, and we spoke to them, and I'm going to allow them to explain what some of the changes are and how to move that forwards. We also have denote location of Seringa Drive transition point. Here is Seringa Drive, which is a public street, and they have – you can see here they have a number of single-family residential homes, and then they have several townhomes along the area here. They want to create this as a public – as a private street and add a gate to it. So you can see the gate up here in the corner. So we need to have them define where the public street ends and to – where it continues, and this is an access easement for Fountain Blue Lane that connects all the way over. We just need to have notation of that. You can see up here they've got that right there. This was a plan that they submitted after our cutoff, and that's why we didn't have revised conditions to include these changes in the plan because these were items that we had discussed at the meeting we had on Wednesday morning. One other condition is update townhomes in the R3 zone to pair on driveways. That was one of the changes in the ordinance was when you have two townhomes, the driveways are supposed to be paired together. And so on the previous plan, they'd have four driveway – or four townhomes, and they paired the units. Well, on this plan, they decided to change them, and so instead of having two townhomes together and two together, they have them spaced out and flipped, so they're not pairing the driveways like they are to meet the requirements. So that was the last condition on the plan, and I was going to ask if there's any other comments or questions that you all might have. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Go ahead. Well, just refresh my memory where this fits in with the, like, tree mitigation that they agreed to. I'm going to allow the applicant to explain where they're putting all their trees. I know they have made – Because some of it came all the way up to the front, I think, and there was pretty extensive discussions about those. Correct, because they had removed the trees off of the rear. They have, I believe, a few of the trees located in the rear where they removed them, but I'm not quite sure where all the trees are at this time. Well, I just want to be sure that we're not going back and replacing some of those trees with this gas station and car wash here. I know they probably have worked with Eric. I just – I don't have that mitigation plan with me. I think our expectation is that they will be updating their mitigation plan with Urban Forester to ensure that they continue to meet those requirements from the Planning Commission. Well, there was a lot of conversations on the first time about whether they could meet those mitigations with the space that they had because they said they could, and then it turned out they came back and said, oh, we can't. And so I'm hesitant today to approve anything until they can show that they could. That's fair. Until you see a mitigation plan for yourself, a revised plan for yourself to make sure that they meet that requirement. Yeah, given that they once said they could meet it and then came back with a lower number than they said they could or a disagreement over whether the required trees could count towards that mitigation I think is what it was. I'll make a note of that. But I'll let the applicant explain, and hopefully he can give you the answers you need. Okay. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineering. We have an approved tree mitigation plan that has been approved by the urban forester, and these developments are just about the same footprint as the other ones. We had to move a lot on, and we do have the plan that we're showing does meet the requirements of the mitigation plan. So we're meeting that. We made sure of that because those were being guarded and watched by the urban forester. So we're not submitting a plan that is not going to be able to meet that requirement. So we're sure of that. And after our subdivision committee meeting, I sent an e-mail and request that the planning staff and traffic engineering meet with me on some of the items of discussion. The planning staff was very gracious, and traffic engineering was gracious to say that they could meet with me this last Thursday. I also met with traffic engineering on Wednesday and went over some of the items. And in the Wednesday meeting, they have asked for some changes and putting a double walkway from the canopy into the C store. And then I had realigned the access of the parcel to be across from the out of the parcel on lot three. And then on Thursday, planning staff was gracious enough, like I said, to meet with me and traffic engineering, and we went over this, and I think we've come to a good resolution on it. So I think they're happy. I'm happy. The client's happy. So David is here from traffic engineering. If you'd like to hear from him, he'd be more than glad to help explain our meeting. All right. Do we have any questions for the applicant? All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience? Only three. Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open. I have a question. Is the condition on five urban foresters approval of tree preservation plan, that's separate from the mitigation plan, isn't it? I do think they are two separate documents. So we could add to his sign-off review and approval of the mitigation plan. Okay. Hold on one second. I was going to join the question. And then I guess there was a discussion where it was brought up, the drive-through between the building and the pumps. I would like to hear David's comments on that. Like Fred mentioned, we met on actually I think Monday and Tuesday. So our first thought was that we're kind of reverse the orientation within the drive-through. There is an easement at the rear that makes it more difficult. So trying to look at his site as is. It is up next to the access easement, which is, especially if you're only walking to there, is going to be better. So that's atypical. What we normally see is there's drive-alls all the way around. It's true to say it's atypical to see a drive-through like that in front. That's why some of the proposals we mentioned were to add a median. Well, not really a median, but a barrier. And then we talked even earlier today about potentially. So he said he didn't have the architecture of drawings as to where the actual entrances would be. But I think as far as the crossing between the canopy and where the actual entrances will be is somewhere where we would want to see that. So that's sort of a way. What he's showing isn't against anything in the zoning ordinance. So I think we were trying to get kind of the best scenario we could with the drawings. I guess the orientation that satisfied the goals of his project as well. And trying to mitigate those as best we could, but also acknowledging that it's atypical, certainly. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. McGill. The floor is open. Just a clarification. Are we adding approval of the mitigation plan to number five, or are we adding it as a separate requirement? I would suggest adding it to number five. Okay. Ms. Wirth, are you making a motion? I am, I guess. I reckon. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNJDP25000H, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple. It would be attached to 17 conditions, recommended by staff, changing number five to add urban forest preservation and mitigation plans. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Zach Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Ms. Wilson? What about number 14 and number 15? Should that be resolved as opposed to discussed? I think the applicant proposed a resolution that traffic engineering believes is adequate or meets their needs and safety needs, as well as the access point line-up. That's okay, too. So, yes, those can be resolved with traffic engineering sign-off. I am in my motion, then, also changing conditions 14 and 15 from discussed to resolved. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Davis, are you still seconding? Yes. All right. Okay. Please vote for your grant. The motion passes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to tell you that we have talked with the urban forester concerning the plan, and we'll make sure that those trees are there, and he will. Thank you for that. We have one more item to discuss, I think. Yep. PLN MJDP 25-11 on page 11. And we have an adaptive reuse compliance report with it. Our last plan for the day, MJDP 25-11, Delaware Group and Clay Ingalls Company, LLC, Rail Yard, located at 968, 976, and 1000 Delaware Avenue. And this is an adaptive reuse. The purpose of this plan is to incorporate 976 and 1000 Delaware Avenue into the existing adaptive reuse development. There was a previous adaptive reuse before we get into that. So Delaware Avenue is to the north of the subject property, and Winchester Road is to the top left out of the frame a block or a couple blocks away. And then this does back up to, let's see, a little tight. It does back up to LFU CG-owned property. The previous adaptive reuse was at 968 Delaware. It's the Pasta Garage. This proposal adds on to that existing adaptive reuse at 976 Delaware is an existing structure with a motorcycle repair shop. They are proposing to add a cocktail lounge and a temporary canopy to that structure. And then they're also proposing to construct three multifamily structures. And then there's also a community garden on site and other amenities. There are 12 standard sign-offs. And then provide a lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance for areas of new construction. 14 provided that the planning commission finds that the adaptive reuse project meets the requirements of Article 8-2104 of the zoning ordinance. And to discuss the use of the banquet area and canopy at 976 Delaware Avenue and discrepancy with the description in the comprehensive plan statement. They have indicated that that was initially indicated. The cocktail lounge is a banquet area. And they have made a revision to the plan and changed that and changed this from canopy to a temporary canopy to meet the building setbacks in the front of that existing structure. And then number 16 to discuss compliance of principal structures with the 20-foot front yard setback of the I-1 zone. And that's, again, in regard to that temporary canopy. That's all I have on the initial presentation. And then we do have the adaptive reuse compliance report. Per the zoning ordinance, to be considered for an adaptive reuse project, any project has to meet a certain number of criteria. There's a point system. And what they're proposing to do is rated based on points. And they have to have a minimum of 10. For the location public art requirement, this project complies with the following requirements. The property is located in or adjacent to or across from a public right-of-way from the infill and redevelopment area. It is adjacent to the existing pasta garage, which was an adaptive reuse project. The site is within the defined infill and redevelopment area. The applicant intends to construct three three-story residential buildings at 1000 Delaware Avenue, which is a brownfield site, and include a cocktail lounge and temporary canopy in the existing motorcycle repair shop at 976 Delaware Avenue. The project includes both adaptive reuse of a principal structure and public art or a public art easement. In addition to the existing public art on the 968-976 Delaware buildings, the applicant is proposing to include public art along the public facing building facades at 1000 Delaware Avenue. The project, the next criteria, the project has to meet at least one of those. This site includes a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or is determined to be eligible for such listing, is determined to contribute to the significance of a National Register Historic District, or is in an area that meets the requirements of the National Historic District, or is individually listed on a state inventory of historic places, or is located within a historic district H-1 overlay zone or was constructed prior to 1950. D, the applicant shall include at least one element from the following categories and must reach a total score of 10 points. For the first set of criteria, primary land use, building form and design, they indicate that they will meet the affordable housing 80% for 15 years, which is 4 points. The green rated site design, which is 3 points. Green infrastructure, which is 2 points. Mixed use residential and commercial site wide, 1 point for a total of 10 for that section. The applicant states that the proposed 32 residential units will include market rate and affordable housing as defined by LFUCG's Office of Affordable Housing. The project will incorporate reductions in storm water runoff, improvements in water quality, reduction in pervious area, an increase in tree canopy coverage, and this will be accomplished by utilizing permeable pavement and removing pavement and utilizing green infrastructure. The second grouping, transit infrastructure and connectivity, the applicant indicates they will have publicly accessible property, cross connectivity for 2 points for a total of 2 within that group of criteria. The applicant is providing an accessible connection to the public right of way by constructing sidewalks, including bike racks, as well as including internal pedestrian walkways between existing and proposed structures. The third set of criteria, quality of life components, they indicated an increase of canopy coverage to 20%, which is 2 points. The project is in a district that has applied for or has obtained special funding, similar government incentives, which is 3 points. Community garden space, which is 1 point for a total of 10 points for a total of 22 points across all the criteria. In 2024, a phase 2 environmental site assessment was completed on the site. The applicant is proposing to increase the tree canopy to a minimum of 20% coverage. The applicant has applied for several special funds and incentives at 1000 Delaware Avenue, including the targeted brownfield assessment mentioned. Fiscal year 2025 LFUCG water quality incentive grant, which is a class B feasibility study, and a FY 2026 LFUCG water quality incentive grant class B infrastructure. This proposal also includes space for a community garden, which will be offered to residents and surrounding restaurants and residents. In conclusion, the applicant is proposing to include 976 and 1000 Delaware Avenue into the existing adaptive reuse project. The applicant's proposal has a total of 22 points, which exceeds the minimum required. This proposal meets and exceeds the minimum criteria of article 8-21-04 of the zoning ordinance, and staff does recommend approval of this adaptive reuse project. Mr. Nickel? Yes, I've got a question regarding the conditions. Are we going to remove condition 15 in our recommendation? Yes, I think we can resolve that and 16. Okay. That was resolved with the revised plan. Okay, so they can be removed completely, is that correct? Yep. Yep, thank you. So there's 14 conditions. May I? Sorry. Thank you. Ms. Davis? Thank you. Can I ask a couple of questions? The quality of the image is such that when we zoom in on it, it can't tell what certain things say. So I'm just curious, the green and green and yellow area at the lower left-hand side, what do those words say in those green shapes? The dark green? Yeah. It's a dog park and a community garden. Dog park and community garden. Okay. Could you also help me to understand how 29 parking spaces are going to work for all of those housing areas? Is that the outline of the constructed area, or is that just relatively where the built environment will be? Let the applicant answer that. Okay. And then is the light gray area amongst the two- and three-story buildings meant to indicate hardscape, like asphalt, paver, something like that? I'll let him answer that. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Scott Southall with EarthCycle Design, and I'm here representing Will Handerhan, who is with 1000 Delaware LLC, the property owner for 1000 Delaware Avenue. And, Ms. Davis, to answer your questions, the area in between buildings 1 and 2 and between buildings 3 are going to be a combination of paved areas. We haven't selected what that material will be, most likely concrete. With integrating tree wells into those areas throughout, again, we're still working with the architect on terms of exact locations, in terms of building entry and so forth, in terms of penetrations. So those are still in somewhat flux, but the idea is to have that as a landscaped tree canopy plaza area. Thank you, Scott. Mr. Southall? And then what does the purple – can you see it says zone I-1? Sure. So based upon – the purple is industrial, the red is commercial, and the brown represents housing, or in this particular case, multifamily housing. And so those are colors that match what the zoning colors are from planning. So that's why those are those colors. So I would just comment that this – when I first read about this in the newspaper and then saw it was going to be on the agenda, and, you know, I think it's a tremendously great idea. I hope that as the development and the planning kind of – the development of the site goes on, it will look more cohesive and less like there is just a driveway through with different things in there. I think it has a ton of potential, and I'm super excited to see that there's this kind of development going on on Delaware Avenue. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wirth? I may have asked, is it subdivision committee? But if so, I'm sorry, I forgot the answer. This is both market rate and affordable housing? Correct. How many affordable units will there be here? We're proposing up to 12 units would be affordable, and then the remainder will be market rate. So of the 32, approximately 30%. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Southall, thank you. Thank you. All right. If you make any comments, no problem. So we'll bring it back to the commission. Mr. Nickel? I was waiting for any questions. If there are no questions, I can make a motion. You're going to give Robin a chance to ask a question? I looked over there. This looks good. I looked over there. I like what I see. I'm going to recommend approval of PLNMJDP 2511, Delaware Group and Clay Engels Company, LLC, with the 14 conditions. We've struck condition 15 and 16 of those have been accomplished already. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Oh, Mr. Duncan's gone. Ms. Wade, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm filling in. Oh, sorry. The psychologist asked me if you accepted the compliance report that Chris presented about adaptive reuse. Okay. Mr. Nickel? It's the compliance report. I'm going to recommend approval and acceptance of the adaptive reuse compliance report, PLNMJDP 25-11, Delaware Group. Thank you. Before you vote, I just want to note that they did supply their affidavit about the signposting for that project. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Do we have a second by Ms. Wirth? Please vote via Granicus. Motion fails. Not yet. There we go. Okay. Oh, someone's gone. Ms. Davis? All right. Motion passes. Now, Ms. Wade? Yes. Sorry, Mr. Duncan had to step out for another meeting, but he wanted me to remind the commission that we do have work session next week on Thursday, March the 20th, in the Phoenix on the third floor, and we look forward to seeing you then. All right. This meeting is adjourned.